Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What states sued over the Trump administration SNAP work requirement rule?
Executive Summary
The question centers on which states sued over the Trump administration’s SNAP work requirement rule; that litigation is distinct from later, larger lawsuits about suspensions of SNAP benefits and funding. A 2020 lawsuit to block the Trump administration’s new SNAP work‑requirement rule was filed by 14 states led by California, while separate litigation in 2025 involving 25 states (plus D.C.) challenged the administration over suspending SNAP benefits during funding disputes and shutdowns [1] [2] [3]. This analysis lays out the two different legal fights, names the plaintiffs in the 2020 suit, summarizes the 2025 disputes, and highlights how news accounts have sometimes conflated these separate cases for political effect [1] [4] [5].
1. How the 2020 lawsuit aimed at the SNAP work‑requirement rule unfolded and who led it
In January 2020, 14 states filed suit to block the Trump administration’s rule tightening work requirements for Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients, arguing the rule ignored local labor markets and would cause hunger and increased costs [1] [2]. The complaint named California among the plaintiffs and listed other states commonly reported in contemporaneous coverage—Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia—forming a multistate coalition challenging both the substance of the rule and the administrative process used to enact it [1] [2]. The 2020 case focused squarely on the regulatory change itself, not on benefit suspensions tied to shutdowns or funding disputes, which is a distinction crucial for accurate reporting and analysis [1].
2. The separate 2025 lawsuits over suspensions and funding that are often conflated with the 2020 case
In late 2025 a different wave of litigation emerged, with reporting noting that 25 states—and in some reports 25 states plus Washington, D.C.—sued the administration over the suspension of SNAP payments amid funding disputes and alleged improper termination of waivers, seeking court orders to restore benefits immediately [4] [3] [5]. These complaints alleged the USDA unlawfully withheld November payments or refused to use available funds, creating an urgent food‑security crisis for millions. This matter concerned executive withholding or suspension actions and waiver policies, not the procedural or substantive legality of the 2020 work‑requirement regulation, and media accounts have sometimes merged the two into a single narrative, producing confusion about who sued over what [4] [6].
3. Why the distinction between the two lawsuits matters for policy and public understanding
The 2020 suit targeted regulatory design and administrative procedure, asserting the work‑requirement rule would indiscriminately strip benefits and failed statutory notice-and-comment safeguards; litigation aimed to prevent implementation of a rule that would change eligibility and waiver standards [1]. By contrast, the 2025 litigation was about the immediate suspension of benefits and the administration’s use—or nonuse—of funds during a funding crisis, seeking emergency relief to avert harm to beneficiaries who faced imminent loss of assistance [4] [5]. Conflating these lawsuits obscures differences in legal theory, remedies sought, and potential impacts: one seeks to block a rule going forward, the other seeks restoration of ongoing payments and enforcement of funding obligations [2] [3].
4. How reporters and parties presented the cases and where agendas appear
Coverage and statements from state officials framed both suits as protecting vulnerable populations and enforcing federal law, while administration statements emphasized regulatory objectives and fiscal or legal rationales. Media pieces from October–November 2025 tended to report the 25‑state litigation as a coordinated coalition over suspensions, whereas earlier 2020 reports detailed the 14‑state challenge to work requirements; some outlets compressed timelines or lacked explicit disclaimers, creating potential public misunderstanding [4] [5] [1]. Advocacy groups and state attorneys general promoted narratives aligned with their policy positions—protection of benefits versus regulatory rollback—so readers should note these organizational agendas when evaluating claims and headlines [6] [2].
5. Bottom line: who sued over the SNAP work‑requirement rule and how to read subsequent litigation
For the specific question asked, the lawsuit directly challenging the Trump administration’s SNAP work‑requirement rule in 2020 was brought by 14 states including California and the other states listed in the complaint [1] [2]. The larger set of litigation involving 25 states (and in some accounts D.C.) in 2025 related to suspensions and funding, a separate legal fight concerning emergency benefits and waiver terminations, not the original work‑requirement regulation [3] [5]. Readers and reporters should treat references to “states suing over SNAP” with attention to dates and legal claims—the parties overlap at times, but the legal issues, remedies requested, and immediate stakes differ markedly between the 2020 and 2025 cases [2] [4].